I have been reading the 5th ed. book. The new matrix took me by surprise. Entirely different. My gut reaction was not a favorable one at first. Seems way to simplified down, while not giving good explanations for how stuff works. How do you just steal some paydata for example. Give the host a mark and then do whatever?

But on the other hand it looks like it might be fun to play. Certainly not as convoluted for the payer who doesn't want to learn every backdoor in the decking rules like in VR2. (Which I loved by the way)

So I was wondering if anybody could give me an objective opinion on how running the matrix in 5th edition plays. I ran a search here on dumpshock and did not find much in the way of reviews. So come no dumpshockers, somebody out here must have an opinion or 2 about the return of decking.

Thanks

I like it. I've played since 3rd, and its the most intuitive of the systems. There are a bunch of threads on here with examples of how it's used, I'd look those up to get an idea of how it plays. I've not played a technomancer, so I don't comment on them. The one problem I had while playing was getting stuck hacking; the team needed to move forward as a group, but all my actions were tied up fooling cameras. It definitely solves the "enough time for the rest of the group to get a pizza" problem of previous editions. Like I said, we liked it, but ymmv.

DrZ

It's okay in concept, but the execution - both the wording of the rules and a few particular rulings, - are severely lacking.

It's a system which tries to be more secure, and at the same time even the files on a commlink can be listed from outside with a simple perception test. What do you think how well this works?

Without getting overly wordy, it sucks shit. It's amazing how they can meet design goals (eliminating Extended tests in hacking, for example) and entirely screw everything else up.

Also, technomancers have no place in the new Matrix with the rules as written. Hell, they don't even have a place in the setting anymore. They're useless. If you never cared for them, you'll find this a good turn of events. If you were a fan of them, it's another bullet in the stinking, bloated, fly-ridden corpse of an edition that was pretty much dead on arrival.

It's great. Deckers can actually have a small impact on combat now (I mean beside the lock the doors, turn on halon gas system example that continually gets trotted out).

I think that strategically you can do everything you always could but the rules aren't ridiculously overcomplicated. Tactically I think it is somewhat simplified for matrix combat but I think they needed to do that because most people just refused to engage the matrix in 4th Ed because it was too complicated and too slow.

I'm still in the wait and see...

One positive is that no more Mage Hackers, you can still build one but its going to cost you something and your probably not going to be as good as the dedicated guy.

In the fourth building a mage hacker cost you at least all the bonuses from implants.

Ok sure... but you could also take the hit and raise your magic rating since there is no cap. But thats fair to say you dont get the bonus implants still. So there is some cost.

I have to agree here. In my own opinon, the new matrix rules are an A for concept and a C (at best) for execution.

They took the route of making it an abstracted system instead of trying to replicate realistic computer/network concepts, which as a player of hackers, I thought was a smart move. Besides some basic simplifications and ease of play improvements, it also allowed them to build in some concept to the mechanics, like Overwatch Scores and ownership, which on their face, I thought were interesting additions.

Unfortunetly things are not written especially well. The first major issue I noticed was the handling of "running silent" or more spicifically the rules for locating a hidden icon. They are vague, and depending on interuprtation, easily messed with via cheap stealth tags.

The second major issue I found was that the general matrix rules (mostly in the matrix actions) are written from the perspective of a hacker making an attack. Very little thought was put into how the "everyday" user might do things (corporate drone wants to spellcheck a report? opposed roll vs the Matrix Host), or even how a non-hacker runner might make use of things. There are no rules of accessing protected files except for illegally cracking the file, not even for the owner.. Ownership vs marks vs illegal marks when using a device is a mess too. They invented the concept of ownership and marks, but then still talk about "giving permision" to jump into devices, etc.

And of course, matrix bonuses and bricking. I like the idea that I can disable a device with a matrix attack, but did they really need to shoot sparks and fire? Wireless bonuses are a great idea for why things aren't usually off-line, until you read what some of the wireless bonuses actually do and try to figure out how that works.... or in some cases just say WTF? (I'm looking at you silencers with microphones.)

Grids are another confusing point. They are interesting concept, but as exacuted they provide very little to gameplay for the amoutn of complexity they provide, and in particular the "public grid" rules are a bit odd. They could have easily integrated the cross grid and public grid rules into the Noise rules, but instead you have various penalties that apply some, but not all, of the time thanks to how Hosts work.

Any one of these issues would have been fairly easy to overlook or fix with house rules, but as a whole they really make the new matrix, which was supposed to be easier to use, a mess to work with.

\

unfortunately I completely agree and would expand this comment beyond the matrix. If you read the Fanpro 4e book, somehow the errata and editing feels worse (and this coming from a big fan of 2e where rules were all over the place) but conceptually most things are in the right direction. Thus why I'm waiting on errata before purchasing physical copies.

Thank's a bunch. I still have not had a chance to play test the rules yet. All fluff stuff aside, they look simple and fun. But I can't help but think it's to simple for hacking a global computer network though. But well...seems to be my impression of 5th ed over all. Good ideas but very little done with it. (wish they had added an option to bring the combat pool back) Maybe I can find some way of expanding on the matrix rules. More advanced action for deckers they might be equivalent with some technomancer abilities.

And while I have your all brief attention, did anyone get an impression how a system, err host, decides to agree to a mark. Sounds like something that could be hacked.

... First, it would be unwise to boost deckers to mimic technomancer abilities - deckers are already better as it is; technomancers got completely screwed over this edition. There's a reason I'm working on a complete rewrite to put up for houserules (I might toss up a first draft tonight, actually - it's far from complete, but there's some stuff I wouldn't mind hearing feedback on).

In any case, you're not hacking the global network, your hacking stuff on the network while you are yourself already in it; that said, more complex stuff (such as long-term stuff Bull referred to as "Deep Runs", plus I assume the Resonance Realms stuff for technomancers) is slated for Data Trails so far as we know.

As far as stuff like combat pool goes, my impression is that Edge is supposed to stand in for all that stuff.

And finally, there's no indication as to what kind of authentication options are in use; all the same, I expect it would largely be the same as in Unwired in terms of concept:

- Access ID; essentially, checking if the device itself is on the trusted list. Hosts would not use this, but some devices might (it's very insecure)
- Web of Trust; the device attempting to gain access is cross-verified across a wide array of sources, including a SIN verification. This is actually the method used for SIN verification in the first place.
- Passcode; essentially a much more complicated variant of a password. The linked variant (where the system requires an additional piece of verification, such as biometric information or a specific check against a device) might be used by some less secure hosts.
- Passkey; this would probably be the primary method. Basically, a passkey is a unique object of some sort that can be attached to things like a commlink; the system can then check the passkey out and see if it has the correct one. They're also available in alchemical varieties for added security, though the nanotech ones probably aren't in use right now. For more secure stuff, there's no reason why you couldn't use Web of Trust AND Linked Passcode AND a Passkey, requiring all to be correct. There's also provision for unique or otherwise alternative authentication methods, though they're likely less used.

Hosts don't really make that decision. The owner of the host can hand out marks. A Spider assigned to a host counts as an owner (it's in the Matrix Security section of the GM Chapter) so they should be able to hand out marks. If you want the system to hand out marks instead of a person, there are examples of an Agent program (presumably run on the host by the host owner/spider) handing out marks in the new Coyotes book. In the example, agents in lower security border crossing check points invite visitors to place a mark on the checkpoint host so they can enter the host and submit appropriate paperwork. The agent essentially handles the automated tasks of the border crossing host system because the host can't really take action on it's own short of launching IC.

In theory an agent setup in a host could be assigned to hand out marks depending on a wide variety of options, including just about anything it can spot via Matrix Perception. It might also hand out marks to anyone that sends it the correct code via a Matrix message, or any combination there of.

As for hacking, It's possible to place marks (illegally) on a host with either Sleaze or Attack actions (with diffrent results beyond placing your mark... Brute force vs Stealth), but Hosts have very big Firewalls which makes this difficult to do from the Matrix. More often then not, it's easier to physically connect to some device that is slaved to the host and place a mark on the device, which populates back to the host. It's why Deckers in Shadowrun 5th edition often want to hack on site.

Spoofing in 5th edition is more limited than in past edition. You can spoof devices, but only if you have a mark on their owner. Everything in a Host is owned by the host owner (or again, the active spider) which is probably in the host too, so spoofing means you need to get into the host, or get the owner/spider to come out of the host. Moreover, spoofing only works on devices, and neither hosts nor agents count as devices.